2,594 posts in this topic

skyeagle409 2,909

Like others have stated it really doesn't matter what evidence is put forward the die hards will still find some explanation that fits the Conspiracy......I'm not one of them.

I believe we went to the moon and have actually been to Kennedy in Homage and have some kind of meteorite somewhere I bought from the space centre..well I'm led to believe it is anyway, but I appreciate your post.

Its the doubt that the committed CTers have conjured by perhaps clever and believable explanations that leads to threads like this, it would be great though to have a device we could look thru and see the sites even if it doesn't satisfy the sceptics.

There are those who still believe the world is flat and despite all of the evidence they refuse to believe the earth is round.

What if they were in the shoes of the president of the United States and was told that it was impossible to send a man to the moon. Would it be cost-effective to spend billions and billions of dollars to hoax Apollo moon missions over a period of years or simply admit that we can't do it? Eventually, mankind will make frequent trips to the moon and no doubt that in the future historians will want to visit the Apollo landing sites, so what would be the result if those landing sites are not there went they arrive on the moon? Surely, the president and lawmakers would know that eventually mankind will make a base on the moon before making such a decision to hoax Apollo moon missions or not.

The Apollo program involved a lot of money and many people, so what would happen if just one of those folks had a bad habit of talking in his sleep beside a wife who loves to gossip around town and decides to drop the ball because she wanted a new fur coat and was refused? The risk would be much to great and expensive and no doubt, damage the credibility of the United States and make it the focus of comedy relief for decades to come. There would be no way to keep everyone quiet and eventually such a hoax would be revealed. After all, they couldn't keep the Watergate scandal quiet very long.

That in mind, what president or lawmaker in their right mind would even think to approve funding to hoax Apollo missions taking into an account that eventually mankind will create a base on the moon and knowing of the consequences should Apollo moon hoaxes were revealed to the whole world? The United States would be the laughing stock in the eyes of the world for decades to come, so the questions are:

1. Would it be prudent to approve billions and billions of dollars to hoax Apollo moon missions knowing of the consequences should the hoaxes be revealed?

2. Simply tell the world that such missions would be difficult, but we are working on the problem?

Waspie_Dwarf 8,768

Like others have stated it really doesn't matter what evidence is put forward the die hards will still find some explanation that fits the Conspiracy

When someone is working on the initial premise that the USA would spend any amount of money, develop any necessary technology, deploy any necessary resources and do absolutely anything to convince the world that they sent men to the moon EXCEPT send men to the Moon, you know that no logic argument is going to work.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

flyingswan 806

So he is qualified to use holography to measure the shape of objects. What has this to do with Apollo photography? What incriminating evidence, exactly, does he claim to have discovered in Apollo photos?

I already know about the highlight on Aldrin's boot, which is not incriminating as it fits remarkably well with other Apollo evidence.

Edited December 15, 2012 by flyingswan

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

postbaguk 114

What he failed to realise is, that there is a bright secondary light source pretty much where he said it should have been. Armstrong's suit. You can see him stood in full sunlight taking photographs as Aldrin descends the LM ladder.

As for Grove's analysis: where is it? We are simply told that he's done some calculation that prove there is another light source displaced a few inches away from the camera lens. He doesn't offer up his analysis for peer review. There is no sign of it anywhere on the Aulis website. The question I would ask Turbonium is, why do you hold this up as evidence that the photo was faked? Have you seen the actual analysis? If so, have you checked it for accuracy, or had it reviewed by an independent third party?

Even without his analysis, we can ask some questions that would need to be answered if his analysis was correct.

1. There is no stage light visible in the footage of Aldrin descending the ladder. This presupposes that whoever hoaxed the photo and video footage of the did so in the most stupid way imaginable, by doing multiple takes of the same scene for the purposes of getting the film footage and the photography. Surely a much simpler method of faking the footage, that would eliminate the possibility of continuity errors, would be to get the astronauts to take photographs at the same time as the TV footage and film footage was being shot?

2. This light source Groves has highlighted seems to have magical properties. It's bright enough to show up reflected in Aldrin's boot, but it provides no illumination of the scene itself? Surely a bright light source would have filled in the dark areas in photos like this?

3. Does Armstrong's arm fall within the 24cm-36cm distance he claimed he calculated for the separation of the light source from the camera lens? If so, why does he rule that out as a possible contender for the reflected highlight in Aldrin's boot?

Share on other sites

turbonium 102

What has this to do with Apollo photography? What incriminating evidence, exactly, does he claim to have discovered in Apollo photos?

I already know about the highlight on Aldrin's boot, which is not incriminating as it fits remarkably well with other Apollo evidence.

First of all - you specifically challenged me to find any experts who supported me. And I've met your challenge, as you've noted.

If you expect me to justify my experts, then you should justify your experts in the very same way, correct? You like to make a sweeping generalization about all these experts who support you, without justifying any of them.

In other words, if you say this or that expert accepts it as genuine, then you have the same burden as I do to show why it's valid.

This is not a one-way debate.

You ask "What has this to do with Apollo photography?"

Everything. An expert in photo analysis has examined the Apollo photographs. How is that not clear to you?

"What incriminating evidence, exactly, does he claim to have discovered in Apollo photos?"

I'll address that in my next post...

Afterwards, I'll expect you to present one of your experts, and show what evidence he/she has to claim it is genuine. Then we'll find out if it stands up to the same scrutiny/

skyeagle409 2,909

Everything. An expert in photo analysis has examined the Apollo photographs. How is that not clear to you?

We have photos taken from Japan, India, and China, which confirmed the reality of the Apollo moon missions.

China publishes high-resolution full moon map

BEIJING, Feb. 6 (Xinhua) -- China on Monday published a full coverage map of the moon, as well as several high-resolution images of the celestial body, captured by the country's second moon orbiter, the Chang'e-2.

The map and images, released by the State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence (SASTIND), are the highest-resolution photos of the entirety of the moon's surface to be published thus far, said Liu Dongkui, deputy chief commander of China's lunar probe project.

The images were photographed by a charge-coupled device (CCD) stereo camera on the Chang'e-2 from heights of 100 km and 15 km over the lunar surface between October 2010 and May 2011, according to a statement from SASTIND.

The resolution of the images obtained from Chang'e-2 is 17 times greater than those taken by the its predecessor, the Chang'e-1.

If there were airports and harbors on the moon, the Chang'e-1 could simply identify them, while the Chang'e-2 would be able to detect planes or ships inside of them, said Tong Qingxi, an academic from the Institute of Remote Sensing Applications under the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

The scientists also spotted traces of the previous Apollo mission in the images, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China's lunar exploration project.

There’s certainly no shortage of independent confirmation of the Apollo missions. From ham radio operators to the Jorell Bank Observatory, plenty of independent observers received the radio communications. Others tracked the missions optically. The missions relied on centers located in Madrid, Australia, California, Guam, Madagascar and elsewhere to track and maintain communications with the spacecraft. Since then, lunar samples, observations and data have been confirmed by independent scientists and other national space programs.

However, one mission stands out as having been confirmed more than any others.

At least three of the probes have had imaging capabilities of sufficient resolution to see traces of the mission activities. The best images come from NASA’s

LRO, the only spacecraft able to return images of a high enough resolution to recognize the equipment left behind.

However,

Japan’s SELENE probe confirmed the profile of the area and imaged the “halo” caused by the engines of the LEM disturbing the lunar dust, which had been undisturbed for millions of years, causing the top most layer to have different reflectivity due to the time spent exposed to the solar winds and intense sun light. SELENE also saw the outlines and shadows of equipment, but without high enough resolution to definitively tell they were man-made.

More recently, the Indian Chandrayaan-1 probe provided slightly better images than SELENE, providing additional detail and confirming the observations already made by the two previous imaging missions.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

turbonium 102

What he failed to realise is, that there is a bright secondary light source pretty much where he said it should have been. Armstrong's suit. You can see him stood in full sunlight taking photographs as Aldrin descends the LM ladder.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

turbonium 102

1. There is no stage light visible in the footage of Aldrin descending the ladder. This presupposes that whoever hoaxed the photo and video footage of the did so in the most stupid way imaginable, by doing multiple takes of the same scene for the purposes of getting the film footage and the photography. Surely a much simpler method of faking the footage, that would eliminate the possibility of continuity errors, would be to get the astronauts to take photographs at the same time as the TV footage and film footage was being shot?

2. This light source Groves has highlighted seems to have magical properties. It's bright enough to show up reflected in Aldrin's boot, but it provides no illumination of the scene itself? Surely a bright light source would have filled in the dark areas in photos like this?

3. Does Armstrong's arm fall within the 24cm-36cm distance he claimed he calculated for the separation of the light source from the camera lens? If so, why does he rule that out as a possible contender for the reflected highlight in Aldrin's boot?

1. It's totally irrelevant how "stupid" you think it would be. The reasons are purely a matter of speculation. We don't know why it was done, we only know it WAS done.

2. A powerful laser is also intense, direct light source. Does it brighten everything around the point it hits? No. The Intensity of a light can be significant, but may only increase the brightness at a small point. A weaker light may brighten a vast region.

Waspie_Dwarf 8,768

If you expect me to justify my experts, then you should justify your experts in the very same way, correct? You like to make a sweeping generalization about all these experts who support you, without justifying any of them.

That could prove difficult as it would include every expert in the world EXCEPT your 2 or 3 as no other experts around the world seem to have an issue with a single Apollo image. That in itself would tell a rational person something.

Share on other sites

ChrLzs 10,845

I'm afraid I'm rudely ignoring a certain 'contributor's posts, but it seems that a 'David Groves' has been brought up, as a supposed 'expert'? I'd just like to point out a few things:

David Groves has not been able to be positively identified or contacted, nor has his PhD, if any, been verified. Having a PhD means very little, of course. The Aulis site claimed he worked for a company called Quantec, but that was a small company that only existed for a very short time and was liquidated in 1999/2000 - it appears to have not done or produced anything of any lasting note. David, if you're still around, please come on over and let's discuss your experiments.. 'Dr' David Groves, 'PhD', paging 'Dr' David Groves, 'PhD'....

If anyone else would like to back up what he did (see below) please tell us how he justified the household oven-test.. Read on..

David Groves did some 'studies' (term used very loosely) on Apollo topics. To be frank, they were bloody awful, error ridden, piles of trash, judging by the few snippets that existed at Aulis. I'll just give one example (and there are lots more) - mostly this information comes from Clavius but can be verified elsewhere:

- David Groves clearly did not understand the difference between heat and temperature - he used the figure of 180F (which was then the temperature NASA stated the surface of the Moon would reach at midday) as his 'baseline', completely ignoring that:

- the Apollo EVA's were all done well before 'noon' (more like 10:30-ish equivalent), so the surface would not have reached that temperature, let alone any handheld objects in the vacuum

- the cameras were carried around by the astronauts, so spent some of the 4-hour maximum EVA time in the shade (losing heat), some in the Sun

- the cameras were in a vacuum, and therefore the surface temperature was irrelevant, and conductive/convective thermal transfer was non-existent or close to it.

Yet Groves ludicrously thought that you could emulate the environment encountered by these cameras on the Moon, by placing a camera in a normal household oven on earth for 4 hours, using mainly convective heating..

I'm sorry, but that is just laughable. Reminds me of Jarrah White and his balloon... And it's just the first of a multitude of ludicrous errors and obviously biased claims by Groves. But it's good enough for someone here...

BTW, if Grove's 'analyses' are being used here, then those analyses need to be posted in full. So, can the person who raised this, please post them? I'd be happy to go into much more detail.. Thanks in advance.

If they aren't posted, then as far as I am concerned they are not worthy of further dissection, given the glaring errors (or is it deliberate misinformation?) already noted. And claiming Groves as an 'expert'? Oh, how we laughed...

3 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

postbaguk 114

If the spacesuits are capable of that, I'd like to see a valid case for it!

Are you saying that the spacesuit cannot reflect sunlight? If not, why do you say it has magical properties? All it does is reflect very bright sunlight, that it reflected again off the heel of Aldrin's boot. That is a simple optical principle, not magic.

Do you have an example of this in any other Apollo images? I mean, if you're right, there should be many such images. Or is this the onlly one?

I'll wait for your reply before I go on...

You can see how bright the suit looks in the MPG I linked to. Yes, it's overexposed, but clearly the suit is reflecting sunlight more effectively than the lunar regolith, which is exactly what you'd expect.

There's little point in looking for similar photos in the Apollo record, since you would just claim it's further evidence that your low-powered, directional light was used. I had a quick Youtube search for 'spacewalk' and found this:-

Pay particular attention to the 24 second mark onwards. You can easily see the sunlight being reflected onto the structure by the astronauts suit.

So, looks like spacesuits do have this magical property of "reflection" after all!

1. It's totally irrelevant how "stupid" you think it would be. The reasons are purely a matter of speculation. We don't know why it was done, we only know it WAS done.

It's entirely relevant. I'm just one person with an interest in Apollo, with no training in photography or film direction, and even I know that the method of fakery being proposed by hoax believers is so unbelievably stupid that it beggars belief that either (a) NASA would even consider faking that way, and ( anyone else would believe it either. Fortunately, we don't have to believe it, because the evidence shows that even if they did fake the photos, they didn't do it that way, since there are no discrepancies between the photographic and film records.

I'll give you an example from Apollo 12. You can follow the film footage of the landing all the way down from several thousand feet up, right down to the surface, and can see individual craters out of the window. A short while later, Hasselblad images were taken from the same window, showing one of the astronuats on the surface, with the craters an exact match for the film. The only difference is the shadow lengths which have shortened due to the sun rising.

2. A powerful laser is also intense, direct light source. Does it brighten everything around the point it hits? No. The Intensity of a light can be significant, but may only increase the brightness at a small point. A weaker light may brighten a vast region.

What exactly are you proposing? Remember the highlight is visible in the boot both at the top of the ladder and the bottom. Your method suggests someone pointing a spotlight at his boot as he comes down the ladder...?

3. I'm waiting for your reply to my questions on this issue.

You've had them.

And I'm waiting for answers to the following:-

As for Grove's analysis: where is it? We are simply told that he's done some calculation that prove there is another light source displaced a few inches away from the camera lens. He doesn't offer up his analysis for peer review. There is no sign of it anywhere on the Aulis website. The question I would ask Turbonium is, why do you hold this up as evidence that the photo was faked? Have you seen the actual analysis? If so, have you checked it for accuracy, or had it reviewed by an independent third party?

As well as an answer to the third question.

3. Does Armstrong's arm fall within the 24cm-36cm distance he claimed he calculated for the separation of the light source from the camera lens? If so, why does he rule that out as a possible contender for the reflected highlight in Aldrin's boot?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

turbonium 102

That could prove difficult as it would include every expert in the world EXCEPT your 2 or 3 as no other experts around the world seem to have an issue with a single Apollo image. That in itself would tell a rational person something.

It tells a rational person you're still appealing to authority in itself.

Nonsense.

History has shown the 'experts' were wrong, on so many things. Surely you know that?

In many cases, it was just one person who disputed all of our so-called 'experts' of the era. Called a 'nut' by those 'experts', perhaps. And certainly not a qualified 'expert' like themselves!!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

skyeagle409 2,909

History has shown the 'experts' were wrong, on so many things. Surely you know that?

It is a matter of calling upon the laws of physics to determine who is right and who wrong and I might add that the laws of physics have been called upon from time to time to debunk conspiracist claims, especially concerning the Apollo moon missions, which explains why conspiracist have failed to provide evidence the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed.

In many cases, it was just one person who disputed all of our so-called 'experts' of the era. Called a 'nut' by those 'experts', perhaps. And certainly not a qualified 'expert' like themselves!!

Do you remember the admiral who told President Roosevelt that the A-bomb would never work and that he spoke as an expert on explosives?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

turbonium 102

That could prove difficult as it would include every expert in the world EXCEPT your 2 or 3 as no other experts around the world seem to have an issue with a single Apollo image. That in itself would tell a rational person something.

It tells them something is not rational with that!

You assume that "every expert in the world" agrees with you (that Apollo was genuine) .....because they said nothing???!! Their silence means they all accept it as genuine??

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

turbonium 102

It is a matter of calling upon the laws of physics to determine who is right and who wrong and I might add that the laws of physics have been called upon from time to time to debunk conspiracist claims, especially concerning the Apollo moon missions, which explains why conspiracist have failed to provide evidence the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed.

No such laws are needed in Apollo-land. Just babble about the lunar environment and presto, it's debunked!

Do you remember the admiral who told President Roosevelt that the A-bomb would never work and that he spoke as an expert on explosives?

I can't recall that one. My point is that one person can be right about something, as thousands of 'experts' are wrong. I'm well aware of vice-versa, like in your example. It's not about majority is always right and minority always wrong.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

turbonium 102

Are you saying that the spacesuit cannot reflect sunlight? If not, why do you say it has magical properties? All it does is reflect very bright sunlight, that it reflected again off the heel of Aldrin's boot. That is a simple optical principle, not magic.

What exactly are you proposing? Remember the highlight is visible in the boot both at the top of the ladder and the bottom. Your method suggests someone pointing a spotlight at his boot as he comes down the ladder...?

The spacesuit is in the LM's shadow. No sunlight hits it, so no reflection is possible.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

flyingswan 806

The spacesuit is in the LM's shadow. No sunlight hits it, so no reflection is possible.

So that leaves only stage lighting to account for it.

Are you pretending to forget that Postie found the image in the TV footage of Armstrong taking the photo in question? It clearly showed him only partially in shadow, with a bright sunlight reflection from his right side, a perfect match with Groves "spotlight".

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

turbonium 102

You are in no position to accuse others of appealing to authority whilst at the same time presenting an argument which has no evidence apart from "because Groves says so."

Double standards from turbonium, what a surprise. He'll be making up quotes next, oh wait...

It seems you need a review of who initiated the appeal to authority here...

However, you wont find a single scientist or aerospace engineer who does not accept Apollo.

It suggests that the people who dispute Apollo lack the technical background to understand the strength of the evidence for the landings.

So that's why I mentioned two experts in photography who support my position. Of course, that prompted your side into making another appeal to authority...

There are hundreds of experts who don't.

A bit later, I noted ..

If you expect me to justify my experts, then you should justify your experts in the very same way, correct? You like to make a sweeping generalization about all these experts who support you, without justifying any of them.

Do you remember this reply?...

That could prove difficult as it would include every expert in the world EXCEPT your 2 or 3 as no other experts around the world seem to have an issue with a single Apollo image. That in itself would tell a rational person something.

So I'm obliged to justify my two experts, while you make a lame excuse to avoid justifying even ONE of your experts?!!